Slashdot Mirror
University of Florida Student Tasered At Political Rally
An anonymous reader writes "During a political rally at the University of Florida, an annoying student was tasered while attempting to ask Senator Kerry (D-MA) some questions regarding the 2004 election. Police are looking into whether excessive force was used to prevent the student from going over his alloted question period." There are also several YouTube videos available of the incident.
Sine the word 'deserve' is going to be used a lot in this one, I'll note that if you purposely watch the Oscars, you 'deserve' whatever lunatic ramblings you are exposed to.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
And that's a good thing? The problem that a lot of human rights organizations have with "less then lethal" weapons is that they lower the standard for when force can be applied. Whether or not he deserved to be removed from the room is a subject I'm not going to dwell on. But four officers couldn't remove one college student without using a taser? Give me a fucking break! How did they manage police work before they had tasers?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
One version the story is that this guy was pushy in getting to the mic and about asking his questions even though they were out of time.
Even if that's the case, there are far better ways to handle a questioner who hogs the stage. Whoever was in charge of that event should have politely interrupted, loudly say "Sorry, we have no time for further questions," and cut the mic off. This was totally uncalled for. The University, a state institution, should get their asses sued off.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Distrubing the peace, and resisting an officer? Two of the most BS "crimes" on record in this country. I really don't think he planned on getting arrested or tased.
This is a growing problem with tasers. Law enforcement starts to think that they're harmless tools, which increases the likelihood of use. But, tasers are still somewhat dangerous and even lethal in some cases.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I'm sure different police precints are different, but I know at least some of them consider a taser to be only slightly below a firearm and should only be used when the officer feels that either themselves or someone else is in danger. This kid was handcuffed on the floor with 3 (4?) cops on top of him, how could he be a danger to anyone?
Give me a fucking break! How did they manage police work before they had tasers?
With someone who physically fights them, they physically restrain or subdue them. Absent things like tasers, that comes down to much less politically correct methods sometimes. And that results in everything from bruises to dislocated shoulders, and worse. And then people complain about THAT. What you're really asking is whether or not police should ever be able or be obligided to physically control someone's actions or presence. If the answer to that is yes, then we're just splitting hairs over the method... unless, of course, you're a cop, and perhaps you don't actually WANT to have to have a wrestling match with someone who might have an unsheathed knife in their pocket, or who might have open wounds, or who might be shockingly strong, etc.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So four cops couldn't take down one scrawny journalism student and cuff him without using a god-damn taser? I'll be the first to admit that the kid was trying to get attention by pulling a stunt, however, the actions of these cops are nothing short of barbaric and excessive. These stories of police brutality are getting FAR to common. There is a much larger percent of are police force made up of garbage like these pigs than most people would think.
I have a right to protest, but I don't have a right to shit on the President's rug during afternoon tea.
Nightsticks and guns, I'd guess.
Or maybe they just saw a chance to try out their new toy.
I caught a glimpse of this kid on the news before I left for work today. While I'm sure that the clip was edited for 'mainstream news', he got going on subjects that were important to him. He was determined to make his statement, and give his views to John Kerry. A statement with a question mark at the end isn't really a question.
If you have ever participated in any town hall style meeting, you generally get one or two questions, then you sit your butt down and let another person have the podium. While I respect this kid's right to expressing his views, there is a whole room full of people who also would like the chance to ask their questions. He was offered the chance to step down several times, and got riled up after they cut the mic.
Now as for the tasering, I didn't see the part between where the mic got cut and he got tased, but given his demeanor around the time his mic got cut, I don't think it was fair for him to force them to pull him off the stage. If you are going to complain about being tasered, make sure that you don't start out by giving them a good reason to be physically pulling you away from the podium in the first place.
As a disclaimer, I generally find the use of tasers to be too rampant. Some crazy guy with a sword in a mall and no pants? Sure taser him (been there, done that. On the safe side of the taser thankfully) Some 12 yr old girl who took a swing at you? Take the hit and cuff her, no taser necessary. I was punched by some 14 yr old kid who flipped out over a breakup with his girlfriend. Even then I didn't need a taser.
The kid in this video? I need to see more of the video.
If you ever want to 'resist' then I highly suggest you just go limp, don't fight back. A limp body is still damned hard to move and makes it much easier for your lawyer to defend you in court than if you run, swing, bite, yell.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
No, first he decided to preach and was warned. If he wanted to address an audience, he should organize his own speech or rally. Then, when warned to ask his question, he continued his preaching. When he finally got around to asking the "question", there were actually a string of questions. He didn't approach the mic to ask a question; he wanted to draw attention to himself and issues that he found important. That wasn't his time to take though, and he was asked to stop. He didn't stop. Did you notice how the audience cheered when the police grabbed him? He was wasting their time and making them look terrible in the process.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Tasers can kill people. They should not be used in lieu of muscle and control holds, they should be used when the only other option is lethal force and the cop feels he can use a weapon of less than lethal force to subdue the individual without putting himself or the lives of others at risk.
Cops will taser anyone these days.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Did anyone actually watch the video? This moron was hopped up on drugs, if you ask me. I think the cops had the exact same read on him. He was belligerent and refused to cooperate when he was asked, REPEATEDLY, to leave. He seemed to think that because he was at a mic to ask a question of Kerry, that gave him carte blanche to spew random garbage for as long as he wanted. He was wrong. When he was asked to step aside, he started making a scene. When security tried to move him aside, he acted like he was being arrested and made a GREATER scene. HE escalated the scene, not the police.
I do think the use of the taser was unnecessary. He had probably six cops on him by the time that happened. If he was actively resisting their attempts to be put in cuffs, why does it take more than six cops to force him to comply? Tasering only made him scream like a little bitch and get other students to feel sorry for him. Not the smartest move.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Wait, what?
So because you say that "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" doesn't amount to free speech, suddenly it follows that there must be limits to protest in terms of how or where it is conducted? The 'fire' example is meant to exclude 'physical speech and action' with no corresponding content and that has other unambiguous meanings--shouting fire, waving a plastic gun around in order to promote gun safety, sending out press releases that there is cyanide in the water in order to promote water safety.
the hemming in of the how and where of protest has been more aligned pragmatically with the rise of television than with any detatched legal scholarship.
And, "shitting on the presidents afternoon tea" violates a dozen other laws unrelated to 1st ammnd. rights. Of course I can't come into Nancy Peloisi's living room in order to convince her to impeach Bush, that would be breaking and entering. Here we are talking about public figures in public roles in areas open to the same.
Not at that point they weren't. Free speech doesn't mean freedom to hijack someone else's audience or freedom to use their sound equipment. He was perfectly free to stand outside that building (assuming it's public property that he stands on) and say what he wanted to say.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
I think I've seen entirely too much footage absolutely convincing me that with the deployment of Tazers, that some of the police use it too readily. I remember seeing footage where a guy was asked to turn around, complied, asked to put his hands behind his back, he did. They cuffed one arm and couldn't quite reach the other wrist, and in trying to pull the other arm closer, they make some comment about 'stop resisting, just let us cuff', and then within five seconds of no obvious struggling, they taze. The worst he could have been doing was holding his arm stiff, but he wasn't actively doing anything and had appeared to be very compliant to that point.
I couldn't watch the video with sound up, so I don't know when the Tazing occurred, but it is safe to say people have been Tazed by police with much less justification than this guy.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Ugh, these people are drama queens! It's not like there's a fine line between police brutality and rights to free speech and demonstrating. Just always favor the police and get the thing fucking over with. Who cares, it's never going to be me there.
The police handled things appropriately. A man swinging his arms at police as they are trying to escort him out of a venue is a threat to the police. He wasn't, until he resisted beyond reason, under arrest. Maybe he will learn where that line is now.
He was handcuffed, on the ground, with six cops kneeling on him when he was tasered. How was that appropriate?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
we're becoming a police state, and this is one of so many contributing factors.
I'm not really clear, here, on how you arrive at that conclusion. The whole point is that we have the freedom to assemble. You know, the freedom to hold an event where people get to do things like take turns talking, if that's the sort of event you want to hold. And someone else decides that your freedom of speech and assembly isn't important, and that he can shout you down and take over the event for his own aggrandizement and 15 minutes of annoying notoriety. It's a "police state" action when law enforcement officers actually act to enforce the laws that are written to prevent people from interfering with your events and rights? If there were no statutes covering things like disturbing the peace, then the officers wouldn't have had the grounds to ask the guy to leave, or to arrest him when he decided to ignore their obligation to uphold those statutes. But there ARE such laws, and this twit clearly knew that he went in there to provoke exactly such a reaction, and he clearly considered the rights of the people gathered there to be secondary to his own need for political theater.
History is full of loudmouths, drunks, disturbed people of all sorts. That's why disturbing the peace is a notion we all understand. But the law works FOR this clown, too. This guy can have his OWN assembly where he DOES get to talk non-stop the whole time if he wants, and if someone decides to stand there trying to shout him down, then HE gets the benefit of the police working for HIM, if that becomes necessary. If he wants to run an event where non-stop interruptions by everyone there is the actual framework of the event, then someone being a blathering jerk, in that context, wouldn't BE disturbing the peace, and there's no need for the officers to act. Save the "police state" hyperbole for when it matters, because trotting it out when someone like this deliberately seeks this sort of action and attention completely cheapens the meaning of that phrase.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'm frightened by all the people (90%?) saying the kid got what he deserved being tazed.
What utter bullshit! You guys seem to forget, this was a political rally in a university! What the heck do you think academic freedom is supposed to be about anyway? I remember pretty well when they had that killer Meir Kahane get invited to Cornell U. when I was there, I wish there had been more people like this kid. Maybe he's immature, and a hundred other things but he has balls and he is a presumably a student paying for an education, paying to have Kerry come and to have the privilege to talk back to the Senator. If there is one place that kids MUST NOT BE TAZED it is at political rallies in universities. The idea that a kid has to be educated by corporal and potentially lethal punishment as to where the neocon-sensitized line is in public discourse, is utterly repellent. You expect undergrads to be immature. They are growing their minds. Kids are shown video of how political disobedience and political rallies are often done by people who are getting frog walked away by cops. It is assumed rubber and metal bullets are the province of Myanmar or past South American regimes. Tazers do not feature in the media they are pseudo-educated with, as far as I know they are only on-campus. I think there can be worse things than an unruly but passionate and basically harmless kid talking long. I doubt that is illegal either. And I senators expect this sort of thing. Unless you see someone rushing at the Senator with a knife there is no reason to taze. I'm sorry, I am almost entirely nonpolitical and never was on campus either but there has to be a line drawn. I cannot agree at all with the jerks who say the kid got what he asked for. Imagine what the scene would have been like 10 years ago when tazers were not the fad. This is BAD. It is educating people to be mice. Or if you still don't get it, it is educating people to buy Microsoft, they can't go wrong and what's good for them is good for you. Need I go on? The idea that there needs even to be an investigation is utterly bizarre. This country has gone quite insane, I'm sure.
I agree that he was highly annoying, and maybe even prevented others from asking questions and Kerry from answering.
But so what?
Should he have been shot? That would have also solved the problem. In the head, or knees?
Luckily this is not for you (and sadly also not for me) to decide. There are rules as to when to use tasers. And "highly annoying guy shouting loudly" doesn't cover it. He was of no danger to anyone, and was on the floor.
You don't "deserve" being tasered. A taser is not a punishment, and you can not be punished by a policeman, only by a judge/jury. A taser has defined aims - to protect others from harm, if other less violent means will not serve the same purpose. The policemen should be punished.
First of all, he's not a presidential candidate. He's a former presidential candidate. He *is* a senator--he serves the public. What's wrong with taking "two minutes" of his time to ask some questions? I think that some of those questions were a little unfair, and rambled over too many topics. But I wouldn't say he was a raving lunatic either.
And the crowd? A bunch of little proto-nazis as far as I'm concerned. This is UF after all.
Ladies and Gentlemen, while I'm sure there is more that meets the eye to this video that shows a very disgusting display of police domination, we still have a Constitutional guarantee of our freedom of speech. He was neither hurting anyone or making threats while on the mic.
He wasn't even totally acting outrageous when the mic was turned off. He was somewhat forcefully escorted out of the room and then being arrested. We need to know, what was his crime for the Arrest to take place. Why, when there were approximately 3 to 5 officers holding this young man on the ground did they then feel there was a need to Taser him.
Where was his aggressive crime that threatened the life of another that would warrant the need for a Taser? According to the limited video, there was none visible.
This appears to be a gross abuse of police force. Many more people should be outraged.
Why is this country so great? It is because men and women before us stepped up to the podiums throughout history to cry out against government, and political individuals. This is why this country is great. But now it appears that to speak out is a crime by the very act of opening your mouth. This is just wrong.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Freedom of speech is not a freedom to be heard and/or given an audience. He can say whatever he wants to whoever wants to listen. He doesn't have the right to hijack someone else's venue and force his views down other's throats.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
You know, I actually agree with you that the taser was too much, but the guy went in there looking for trouble and got it. I even agree with him for asking the question. But you have to take responsibility for your own actions, and he would not stop yelling even after Kerry said he would answer the question. That tells me that the guy did not really want Kerry's answer, but only wanted everyone else to hear him. So yes, the taser was too much I'll admit, but his right to speak does not trump everyone else's.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
It's only "resisting arrest" if they are arresting you for something. Not once (at least from the 3 camera feeds I have seen) did they verbally ask him to "Please leave the auditorium" or "Come with us". They instantly went to a physical response.
He was at worst a heckler... he should have been dealt with by turning the mic off and a funny response from Kerry... nothing more unless he attempted to endanger or harm someone else. The first amendment specifically states that all peaceful gatherings are covered under it and until the cops started getting physical there was NOTHING endangering or "unpeaceful" about this meeting.
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Sorry I missed reading your traffic intersection part of the comment....
Here is my reply to that:
The TRAFFIC law specifically states that you must follow the guidance of an officer of the law when you are in a vehicle on public roadways. That is part of TRAFFIC law. An officer of the law can not come up to you at any moment that you are just standing in a public sitatuation and tell you to "Get on the ground" without first having a warrant for your arrest or stating that you are under arrest for "probable cause of committing a crime". When a cop pulls your over they have probable cause and can investigate they sitatation. If the cop feels at any time during an "investigation" that you are endangering him/herself or the public they can also put you under restraint and use necessary force.
There was no probably cause of a crime, no investigation of a crime, there was no public endangerment, the cops were just heavy handed and STUPID!
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
People are focusing and commenting on the wrong thing both here and in other forums discussing the topic.
The question is not weather or not it is justified to taser someone who is resisting arrest. It is not even is it justified to taser this guy who was obviously already subdued.
The question is **why the hell is this guy being considered resisting arrest inthe first place**. What justification was the original arrest under? The police are not supposed to be able to arrest you for speaking out of place in a public forum!
I don't care how annoying the guy was being, or what he was doing that was out of line (storming the mic, etc). Campus security could get involved and escort the guy off the premises, but he shouldn't be arrested for speaking his mind! The police who were there (likely for Kerry security) should not have even been involved in the entire incident.
A society of cowards and a leadership that promulgates fear to stay in power. That's it in a nutshell.
No matter how many speakers you taze, no matter how many KB&R detention facilities you build, no matter how many radio trackers and bugs you put on your kids and employees, no matter how many strip searches and drug tests you all inflict on each other, the basic problem, the one creating these new police states, is that you are all conditioning yourselves to be cowards, and cowards are never safe enough. The level of security you are demanding not only for your persons, but to keep your tender ears from hearing things be said you do not wish to hear, is infinite. The number of people you need to kill overseas to feel safe is impossible to limit. And the more you squeeze those you fear, the more they will hate you and rise up against you, thus making you more afraid and more demanding of more police and more locks and more cameras. I understand Miami cops are now carrying military weaponry. Yet no one feels any safer.
Cowards die a thousand deaths. True cowards kill a thousand people to not die those thousand deaths, and yet still die those thousand times. Stupid people are always afraid, and you can't cure stupid.
At what point did they ask him to leave? He was asked to get to the point and to cede the microphone, but I never heard them ask him to leave. Immediately after cutting his microphone, the campus police started to arrest him. It appeared (briefly) that he was about to shut up right before the cops tried to arrest him.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Did you watch the video? They had him on the ground and were trying to cuff him, but he was struggling against it. As you should be able to see, it's a lot harder for multiple people bigger than the person they're trying to arrest to actually cuff a guy. Watch the video. They can't get his arms into position even with a guy on each limb.
The lady warned him quite calmly that if he didn't stop resisting that they were going to have to taser him nearly a full minute before they did (see 1:10-1:20 on the first link).
Tasering him was the only way to make him stop struggling short of beating him senseless. Which method of incapacitating him would you prefer?
Frankly, I see nothing here but proper police procedure being followed. The cops:
- Tried to gently lead him away. He tried to break free while continuing to cause a disturbance.
- One officer brandishes a weapon but puts it away once he determines the student isn't an armed threat.
- At this point it is clear that he isn't going to go peacefully.
- Tried to pin him on the ground and cuff him in accordance with standard procedures for restraining a suspect who is putting up a struggle.
- Warned him in advance that they'd have to taser him if he continued to resist. He did.
- Tasered him just enough to get the cuffs on and then led him away.
Does anyone have a better suggestion of what to do with someone causing a public disturbance other than just not bother trying to prevent it?If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
That's not the way I see this at all. At every step, he made choices that escalated the encounter.
1. He wasn't asking questions. He was making rhetorical statements. He was preaching. He was robbing other people of the chance to actually ask Kerry questions. What is the punishment for that? Simple, they take the mic away from you and give it to someone with something constructive to say. "He apparently asked several questions he went on for quite awhile then he was asked to stop," university spokesman Steve Orlando said. "He had used his allotted time. His microphone was cut off, then he became upset."
As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., can be heard saying, "That's alright, let me answer his question." Audience members applaud, and Meyer struggles for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room.
So when you ask a question, and the person to whom you asked the question wants to answer, you should submit to the uniformed thugs who have decided that they didn't like your question and they want you out of the public forum?
In Soviet Russia, or 21st century USA?
You can't take the sky from me...
I keep seeing comments that he deserved what he got, and I find that frightening.
I must've watched a different video, because the video I watched had this chain of events:
1. He's standing at the microphone waiting patiently for Kerry to finish his speech.
2. Kerry finishes and calls on him to speak. The guy thanks him for his time in addressing the students.
3. He holds up a book and recommends Kerry read it, because it states that he actually won the 2004 election.
(Kerry states he 'has' read the book)
3. Question #1: (after a statement leading into the question... he's a journalism student after all) How could you concede the election with so many unknowns in relation to disenfranchisement of voters and improper vote counts?
4. He gets a bit upset at a security officer trying to cut him off before he even gets to the question stated in point 3.
5. Question #2: Why not impeach Bush before he invades Iran, since Bill Clinton was impeached over a blowjob?
6. Question #3: Is Kerry a member of the Skull and Bones society, along with Bush?
7. The officer then shuts the microphone off halfway through his last question/statement. (by this time it's been 1 minute and 30 seconds of him at the mic).
8. Then he gets upset that they shut off the mic before he was completely finished, but not combative at all, then they grab him and attempt to eject him from the proceeding.
9. He pulls himself away from the guards once Kerry states that everything's OK and that he'll answer the question(s), but he still shows no signs of combativeness.
10. It pretty much devolves into a melee from here.
I really see nothing here that warrants his treatment, nor justification for the tazering. The fact that some people feel it was justified makes me glad that they're not police officers. Even the cops replying to this thread are saying that the guards were out of line... that should say something.
I find it odd that, these days, US Americans argue the technicalities of everything political, often missing the entire point (such as: were there any weapons of mass destruction?). In this case, the point would be: he was arrested precisely because of what? Because he was overtime?
Since when police men mediate college debates in the U.S. telling people their time is up? Since 9-11? This is fucking laughable...My God, people, you are really confortable with a police state, aren't you? I'm actually used to a civilian with a microphone saying somebody's time is up.
Fortunately, the US institutional design was the work of enlightened men and such an abuse typically will have its right unfolding in terms of consequences (like the guy suing whoever is reponsible for a hefty sum). But, oh my, how confortable the US police is about arresting the ordinary citizen.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Resisting and being loud and annoying are not threats. Police had the guy outnumbered 5-1, he had no weapons and dude....that one big cop could have picked him up and tossed him out the door by himself.
Police today are using the Taser as a work saver. Has the world really gotten to the point where its ok as long as they don't kill him.
By the way have you noticed in all these incidents its allways the little cop with the Napoleon complex thats using the taser
Actually exit polls are widely used to detect election fraud. See the 2004 Ukraine elections, for example.
When as much hanky-panky occurs in an election as did in Ohio in 2004, and when large numbers of people are unlawfully denied their right to cast a ballot, the reported "actual vote" is meaningless.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
For those who think it's easy to control a ranting idiot:
Get 5 of your friends, choose a reasonably healthy male of about the
same size as the guy in the video and try to politely put cuffs on him
with him resisting:
The rules,
you cannot bruise him or hurt him in any way.
and he can do whatever he wants short of throwing a punch.
I think if you do this you'll find a new found respect for the
police officers.
Personally I found his questions interesting, and I think that there was no right for police to arrest him, I believe that Kerry should have answered his questions and defend himself in political way.
Kerry did answer his question, or try to. The nut-case wouldn't shut up long enough for anybody else to get a word in edgewise. Besides, he was just spouting paranoid conspiracy theories.
This only shows me that in the USA if the government does not like your question, they will use whatever means necessary to silent you.
No it doesn't. It shows that if you're a nutcase disturbing hundreds of people in an auditorium, and you struggle against the police when they try to remove you, the police will use necessary force to remove you.
What country do you live in where this does not/would not happen? Seriously, I'd like to know so I can look up a counter-example in Google News.
And another thing that amused me was how people were just sitting there watching and it seems no one tried to help him.
Help him how? By fighting the police? I guess Americans are just more civilized than you're used to-- the way we fight the police is after the arrest in the court system, we don't start brawls in crowded auditoriums.
Besides, this guy was obstructing the event and monopolizing the speaker. I would wager the other participants were happy to see him taken away, they were trying to listen to Kerry, not this crazy jerk's wild-ass conspiracy theories.
Howly shit, that seems quite similar to what happens in other matters in the USA when people is fucked by their government.
They use the court system to solve the issue? Yes, that is similar to what happens with other matters. It's called "civilization," you should try it.
Comment of the year
I'm sure the court can strike that down, but they can certainly arrest the guy for whatever they want. IMO the police went way over the line arresting the guy for taking too long, but it's true that he was acting pretty crazy and violent once they started to take him away and at that point it was certainly causing a disturbance.. it seemed like he was just waiting for the police to do something to totally flip out and overreact. It's a QA session, you can't just keep talking, he must have expected the police to do something and then act like it's police brutality.
It's horrifying though to see everyone sit there cooly watching the guy get tasered over and over. If they had all rushed the police the crowd could have helped him.. regardless of whether the police were doing the right thing, the crowd should have tried to save the guy.. this is frighteningly close to people being too afraid to do anything when their neighbors are dragged away by the gestapo, and the threat is clear in the video "stay in your seats or you'll be tasered and arrested too."
He was acting like a raving lunatic.
People stayed in their seats because the police were trying to remove a raving lunatic.
They were told to stay in their seats to maintain order. They weren't threatened. If they started to rush the police, it would have seemed like he not only was a loon, but had conspirators.
The crowd had no real incentive to help the guy. He came in with the intent to cause a disturbance. He proceeded to cause a disturbance by breaking the rules of the forum, so no one questioed him being escorterd out. Once he started causing a significant disturbance to the police and people around him, they had no reason to intervene, because he was acting like a criminal.
The people did what they should have. The police did what they should have.
This is nothing like the Gestapo pulling people out of their homes at night because of who their mother was. This is nothing like someone being arrested in the middle of the night from publishing a disenting opinion in a paper the day before.
You are terribly incorrect to have even likened it to real suppresion. It gives people that actually worry about such suppresion less credibility. You having said that, and it getting modded up will give credence to people that allow said travesties to happen, saying easily "Must have been another loon..."
They cut off his mic and he didn't take the cue so the campus police asked him to leave. It's apparent when the guards approached him. When he resisted, he became a trespasser, which is a crime in USA. Police can taser you if you're trespassing and resisting their effort to remove you from private property. His resistance escalated the police response to tasering; it was his fault.
The audience did not rush to his aid because it's apparent many were applauding the police, which implied they perceived the student to be a disruption. They were right not to rush to his aid because doing so would have disrupted a legal arrest, which is also a crime. He was charged with disrupting a public event, which appears to be the case if you watch the video.
Had it been on a public sidewalk, I think the guy would have a civil right's case, but since it was on campus, the campus police acted within their rights. Acting like an idiot and not liking the response is not a civil right's violation.
You are right about the public's fear of gestapo-like police, but I didn't see it in the video. It's really too late to be concerned about that though. Police have the power, you don't. We as a nation gave it to them a long time ago. We all just have to live with it... or work toward changing it.
Camping on quad since 1996.
IS TO REMAIN PASSIVE! This dip-shit's thrashing around could have injured a cop or an innocent bystander. He was putting people in danger by struggling and at that point subduing him was the right thing to do. Was it right to stun-gun him? Maybe not, but the alternative was to hit him with baton or fist until he stopped trashing about. I've been hit by lightning, and I'd take a beating over that. I'm not sure a I'd take a beating over a taser, which I've heard is more like a cattle prod (which I've also experienced)
I watched the videos and heard this dude screaming like a kid having a tantrum. I HIGHLY doubt the cops were completely mute. Even people close to the camera got drowned out at times. It's highly probable that the cops were speaking in less hysterical voices and it just wasn't picked up by the camera.
As for the rest of it, I saw him clearly resist the officers attempts to remove him. He was kicking and screaming and thrashing about. That is undeniably resisting arrest, which is illegal even if you are being arrested for a crime you didn't commit. The place to fight it is in the courts, and if it is truly unjust the ACLU will probably jump up to defend you.
Nonetheless, if a cop puts his hand on you and you start trashing about like a spaz, they are going to take you down. If you continue to struggle once they have you subdued, they can't just let go of you until you are "cooperative".
This dick was trying to cause a violent confrontation. Gandhi would be ashamed of this tool.
"Cheeze it!" - Bender
If you overlook the fact that he was an invited attendee to a public event that featured an open microphone to ask questions to a senator who works for and on behalf of the public. Also the event was held on property owned by the public within the state of Florida in trusted to a public educational institution for which he was a paid student. Sure I can see where your argument makes sense.
Anyway, I don't think people are questioning the fact that the student may have been disruptive. I am alarmed in the manner the situation was handled and am hesitant to send my child to that college, which is a shame since I reside close enough to University of Florida to give them consideration. I think the level of violence that was reached by the police deserves investigating and steps should be taken to prevent this from happening again.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...